I am a bit taken aback at the responses referencing this Huffington Post article - a couple of quick notes:
The University policy restricts access to these websites for students as well as staff, in some cases it is possible to still click through to the page after the filter message, but visitors are issued a warning informing them that accessing the site is likely against policy and, in essence, that that they are being watched (as shown in the source referenced in the article).
In addition, the accusations presented go deeper than just social media - to the point that any controversial material, or discussion of such material, would be a violation. Again, I cannot say if this is the intention, or speak to how the policy will be enforced, but this is the way the terms are written.
.
I understand that we tend to rely heavily on the media to fact check our news for us - and frankly, I am shocked at the lack of research The Huffington Post seems to have done prior to publishing this article. Simply reading the terms of the policy in question seems to point out numerous contradictions to the University's statements.
Even if we could somehow set up a system where every internet user pays $230/year to some central authority - how would it be distributed to the site owners etc.? I think this study is more indicative that perhaps internet advertisements are too inexpensive. How much per person would it take to get rid of television advertisements? My guess is a lot more.
No one said they were mutually exclusive, just that there was a general misconception that the U.S. government is a democracy when in fact 1. it is a republic and 2. it is not democratic (in terms of the people do not have the power to effect policy decisions by their representatives.
All the major telecoms have been trying to push landline services on their consumers - every single time I get new service or transfer they tell me I "have" to get a phone line because it's cheaper. In what world does that make sense?
Verizon stopped offering dry-line DSL about 2 years ago and forces all their customers to also pay for phone service - not because of technical implications, mind you, solely because they want it to look like people are using it, and they can do whatever the hell they want because no one is competing with them.
From the article:
"A step-by-step breakdown of how such an attack might occur is as follows:
1. A target is selected and their name is entered into the Network Injection GUI.
2. The target’s traffic stream is located based on their ISP’s RADIUS records.
3. As per the rule on the network injector (as shown in Figure 14), the appliance waits for the target to visit YouTube.
4. When this traffic is identified, it is redirected to the network injection appliance.
5. The legitimate video is blocked and malicious flash (SWF) is injected into the clear-text portion of the traffic. (Represented by the kitty skull and cross bones.)
6. The target is presented with a dialogue to upgrade their flash installation. If this upgrade is accepted the malicious SWF enables the installation of a ‘scout agent’ which provides target validation.
7. If the target is assessed as correct (i.e., the desired person), and safe for install (not a malware analysis honeypot), then the full agent is deployed.
8. Surveillance of the target commences."
No one is arguing that all the complexities and nuances of government can be described in a 100 word slashdot comment. However, I still fail to see how a government can be classified as "democratic" if (as seen above) "average citizens’ preferences continue to have essentially zero estimated impact upon policy change." So, if by "the people have the power to change things" you mean "the wealthy people have the power to change things," then we agree, but this form of government has a different name.
I wasn't explicitly referring to extremism or revolt (although that is another worry), but rather the system collapsing in on itself.
The greater the proportion of wealth there is at the very top, the less and less wealth there is to spread around to everyone else, which means they spend less - In essence, one man with a billion dollars won't spend as much as 1,000 people with a million dollars. This means that at the end of the day there is less demand for products, businesses do less business, workers get laid off - at a certain point you start to see a feedback cycle. Which in the end is very very bad for both the economy and all (99+1) 100% of us.
Hello Troll,
I think your confusion lies in your inability to comprehend scale or derive useful meaning from data. In your frustration, lashing out seems your only recourse - but there are other ways of coping.
Which is why we don't actually have a democracy, we have a republic, in which all of us have the wonderful freedom to choose between corrupt representative 1, or corrupt representative 2.
Perhaps if democracy could be implemented without the polarizing effect of the 2 party system, or in a way that allowed more direct voting on actual issues instead of arbitrarily grouped policies it would be more functional - but then again maybe not.
Yes, Capitalism is the accepted economic system because it produces results; if those same results persist through extreme levels of inequality is a different matter. If what you are trying to say is that the current levels of inequality are actually beneficial for society, I believe most economists would disagree. See The Great Depression, this article, or this book. No one knows what they threshold really is, but no one argues that there isn't one.
If every time I read a story starting with "_______ reversed in mice!" it ended up being an actual advancement in medicine, by now we would be immortal and immune to almost every disease.
True, but in that case the 'violent' behavior is paramount to defeating an opponent in chess or tennis. I doubt the morale 'consequence' of making your opponent feel bad if they lose is weighed as heavily as harming an actual human being.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if we could somehow set up a system where every internet user pays $230/year to some central authority - how would it be distributed to the site owners etc.? I think this study is more indicative that perhaps internet advertisements are too inexpensive. How much per person would it take to get rid of television advertisements? My guess is a lot more.
I'm assuming that the two U.S. aid workers were not treated with this - is anyone exploring a broader application of whatever was used in their cases?
Was talking about the DSL lines. But it's good to hear that some customers are not having issues.
No one said they were mutually exclusive, just that there was a general misconception that the U.S. government is a democracy when in fact 1. it is a republic and 2. it is not democratic (in terms of the people do not have the power to effect policy decisions by their representatives.
Verizon stopped offering dry-line DSL about 2 years ago and forces all their customers to also pay for phone service - not because of technical implications, mind you, solely because they want it to look like people are using it, and they can do whatever the hell they want because no one is competing with them.
you will be assimilated into Windows 8.
From the article: "A step-by-step breakdown of how such an attack might occur is as follows: 1. A target is selected and their name is entered into the Network Injection GUI. 2. The target’s traffic stream is located based on their ISP’s RADIUS records. 3. As per the rule on the network injector (as shown in Figure 14), the appliance waits for the target to visit YouTube. 4. When this traffic is identified, it is redirected to the network injection appliance. 5. The legitimate video is blocked and malicious flash (SWF) is injected into the clear-text portion of the traffic. (Represented by the kitty skull and cross bones.) 6. The target is presented with a dialogue to upgrade their flash installation. If this upgrade is accepted the malicious SWF enables the installation of a ‘scout agent’ which provides target validation. 7. If the target is assessed as correct (i.e., the desired person), and safe for install (not a malware analysis honeypot), then the full agent is deployed. 8. Surveillance of the target commences."
No one is arguing that all the complexities and nuances of government can be described in a 100 word slashdot comment. However, I still fail to see how a government can be classified as "democratic" if (as seen above) "average citizens’ preferences continue to have essentially zero estimated impact upon policy change." So, if by "the people have the power to change things" you mean "the wealthy people have the power to change things," then we agree, but this form of government has a different name.
Agreed. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thepr...
Not when "average citizens’ preferences continue to have essentially zero estimated impact upon policy change."
The illusion of choice is a powerfully deceptive technique.
I wasn't explicitly referring to extremism or revolt (although that is another worry), but rather the system collapsing in on itself.
The greater the proportion of wealth there is at the very top, the less and less wealth there is to spread around to everyone else, which means they spend less - In essence, one man with a billion dollars won't spend as much as 1,000 people with a million dollars. This means that at the end of the day there is less demand for products, businesses do less business, workers get laid off - at a certain point you start to see a feedback cycle. Which in the end is very very bad for both the economy and all (99+1) 100% of us.
basically has the same meaning as the title of this article.
Hello Troll, I think your confusion lies in your inability to comprehend scale or derive useful meaning from data. In your frustration, lashing out seems your only recourse - but there are other ways of coping.
Which is why we don't actually have a democracy, we have a republic, in which all of us have the wonderful freedom to choose between corrupt representative 1, or corrupt representative 2. Perhaps if democracy could be implemented without the polarizing effect of the 2 party system, or in a way that allowed more direct voting on actual issues instead of arbitrarily grouped policies it would be more functional - but then again maybe not.
Yes, Capitalism is the accepted economic system because it produces results; if those same results persist through extreme levels of inequality is a different matter. If what you are trying to say is that the current levels of inequality are actually beneficial for society, I believe most economists would disagree. See The Great Depression, this article, or this book. No one knows what they threshold really is, but no one argues that there isn't one.
can see my face from inside my house.
If every time I read a story starting with "_______ reversed in mice!" it ended up being an actual advancement in medicine, by now we would be immortal and immune to almost every disease.
It's true that not much will change in reality, but it's still a win ideologically & may change the direction of the conversation.
Isn't socialism mostly about sharing and cooperation - why is this a surprise? This is more about worldview as opposed to ethics.
http://www.scientificamerican....
Seriously though that is adorable that they want to try to disprove Poe's Law.
Interestingly, photons hitting you can make you weigh (an itsy-bitsy bit) more due to "solar pressure" https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
True, but in that case the 'violent' behavior is paramount to defeating an opponent in chess or tennis. I doubt the morale 'consequence' of making your opponent feel bad if they lose is weighed as heavily as harming an actual human being.